Global warming appears to have stalled. Climatologists are puzzled as to why average global temperatures have stopped rising over the last 10 years. Some attribute the trend to a lack of sunspots, while others explain it through ocean currents

Oops._________________"The White House isn't the place to learn how to deal with international crisis, the balance of power, war and peace, the economic future of the next generation." --- Joe Biden, 1988

When scientists attempt to hide data in order to make it seem their beliefs are true they can no longer consider themselves "true" scientists, but rather political lobbyists, in my opinion. The goal of a scientists should be to find the truth, period. Using tree rings for temp data, but only up until 1961, because then they diverge from what we know to be true......what possible valid logic could there be for this? Super-imposing other data to "hide the decline"? Searching for ways to keep skeptic scientists from publishing? Real science is real because it can withstand the toughest opposition, not because it fought dirty and kept anyone from disagreeing with it.

Lord Lawson calls for public inquiry into UEA global warming data 'manipulation'_________________"The White House isn't the place to learn how to deal with international crisis, the balance of power, war and peace, the economic future of the next generation." --- Joe Biden, 1988

I'm not an environmental scientist and must rely on articles and reports for laymen. However, I do understand "cooking the books, er data", collusion, corruption, money trails, lies, suppressing information and such. I found this enormously informative and confirms the stories and reports that don't make the main-stream media and academia. Man-made global warming is a man-made fraud and there's a LOT of money involved. Bernie Madoff is a piker comparied to this ponsi scheme and the human suffering caused by these mad, greedy scientists, including the terror they instill in children and students, make them an unspeakable form of criminal. I know the Adminstration is insisting that all this is "meaningless" and keeps maintaining that the "science is fixed", but thanks to some Russian students, the whole scheme is unraveling very fast. Like ACORN, the lid is off and the truth is escaping.

I'm not an environmental scientist and must rely on articles and reports for laymen. However, I do understand "cooking the books, er data", collusion, corruption, money trails, lies, suppressing information and such. I found this enormously informative and confirms the stories and reports that don't make the main-stream media and academia.

Too many people think "a computer cannot make a mistake" and take "information" developed by a computer to have to be fact. Unfortunately, people forget -- the creators of the programs those "infallible" computers run are fallible people ... and mistakes happen either because of a goof or an attempt to defraud or mislead. Recent study of the programs used to create the "models" for AGW have been found to have, uh, "inexplicable" hard coded figures within the programs. Hard coding that has managed to manufacture the desired result.

Quote:

Global Warming in Last 15 Years Insignificant, U.K.'s Top Climate Scientist Admits

The embattled ex-head of the research center at the heart of the Climate-gate scandal dropped a bombshell over the weekend, admitting in an interview with the BBC that there has been no global warming over the past 15 years.

Phil Jones, former head of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, made a number of eye-popping statements to the BBC's climate reporter on Sunday. Data from CRU, where Jones was the chief scientist, is key evidence behind the claim that the growth of cities (which are warmer than countryside) isn't a factor in global warming and was cited by the U.N.'s climate science body to bolster statements about rapid global warming in recent decades.
.
.
.
Jones also allowed for the possibility that the world as a whole was warmer in medieval times than it is today -- a concession that may also undermine theories that global warming is caused by man.

In addition, Jones admitted that an overall lack of organization, and his poor record keeping and office-tidying skills, had contributed to his reluctance to share data with critics, which he regretted.

"To say when you're the record keeper for the globe's temperature that you're not a good record keeper, well, that's going to come back to haunt you for a long, long time," Pat Michaels.of the Cato Institute, a public-policy think tank, told Fox News.

When the tales of gloom and doom seem to have a requirement of lots of your money and control of your actions by others who just keep telling you how much smarter they are than you ... question ... question ... question. Do not accept the lies._________________"The White House isn't the place to learn how to deal with international crisis, the balance of power, war and peace, the economic future of the next generation." --- Joe Biden, 1988

In late November 2009, more than 1,000 e-mails between scientists at the Climate Research Unit of the U.K.ís University of East Anglia were stolen and made public by an as-yet-unnamed hacker. Climate skeptics are claiming that they show scientific misconduct that amounts to the complete fabrication of man-made global warming. We find that to be unfounded:

- The messages, which span 13 years, show a few scientists in a bad light, being rude or dismissive. An investigation is underway, but thereís still plenty of evidence that the earth is getting warmer and that humans are largely responsible.

- Some critics say the e-mails negate the conclusions of a 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but the IPCC report relied on data from a large number of sources, of which CRU was only one.

- E-mails being cited as "smoking guns" have been misrepresented. For instance, one e-mail that refers to "hiding the decline" isnít talking about a decline in actual temperatures as measured at weather stations. These have continued to rise, and 2009 may turn out to be the fifth warmest year ever recorded. The "decline" actually refers to a problem with recent data from tree rings.

I see the argument as not whether the earth is warming, but how the opposing sides think we should react. It will be interesting to see what kind of Climate Bill passes.

One model we do in class is the expansion of water lab. As the beakers of water heat up, the water expands. Flooding is not just because ice caps are melting.

NOAA discusses the importance of reflection and absorption of the sun's energy depending on the amount of ice. The more ice there is, the more energy that is reflected back and the cooler earth becomes while the less ice there is, the more energy is absorbed by water and the quicker Earth heats up. This can happen very rapidly. Did you see the Planet Life series? On the other hand, when Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the Phillipines, Earth cooled by several degrees for a few years. That also happened rapidly. People argue about what we should do and how much of our tax dollars should be spent on this.

Should we go on as we are or should we make changes in the way we live now? Several years ago the world banded together to ban CFC's and the ozone hole is now getting smaller.

Meanwhile, the BP Oil Spill makes me sick and I question why more isn't being done to plug the hole. I heard on the news last Sunday that more could be done but that BP doesn't want to lose the well. I wonder why we don't see images of BP out working on recovering the oil as it moves towards land.

We have a company handing out leases to bring wind towers to our area. I hope they put one in my front yard.

I don't worry about it too much. I place a lot of trust in Nature, of which mankind is a part. I'm always impressed by the way Nature eventually reclaims what is supposedly lost and what appeared at one time to be an ugly heap of trash can become, in a few short years, covered by greenery of some type. The greenery may not be anything but wild grapevine, but nonetheless, nature has managed to redeem what appeared to be unredeemable. Or the way a mulch heap turns itself into fertile soil. Or the way grass and weeds insist on growing where it seems impossible for them to grow--in the tiniest possible slit in a sidewalk, for example.

Don't you wonder sometimes what earlier peoples thought when something they'd hunted and ate for years disappeared? Do you think they thought--hey, we've got to conserve these critters!

I don't know. Sometimes it seems to me we have an awesomely exaggerated opinion of the importance of ourselves in the whole scheme of things. As the recent earthquakes and volcanic eruptions and tornadoes indicate, we have far less control than we think we do.

For an idea of limits to nature's ability to recover from disasters, read up on the subject of mass extinctions (when large percentages of extant macroscopic species vanish from the fossil record). If you don't have something handy in print, there is a Wikipedia article listing 5 major extinction events and more minor extinction events.

But, if nature is unable to recover from disasters, isn't that also "natural"?
If mankind has contributed to those disasters, and mankind is a part of nature, then the inability of nature to recover from it is also "natural," isn't it? Can we call it unnatural when mankind, a part of nature, deliberately set out to eradicate smallpox and is trying to do the same to polio?

Somehow, some way, life seems to prevail. It's milieu may change, but life--animal, vegetable, microbe, whatever--seems to continue.

I might argue whether polio, or viruses in general, are truly alive but your points are well taken. How do we decide what species are worth saving? Recent reports state that more than half of all amphibeans are endangered because of disease and loss of habitat; we can't save them all. Is the purpose of the International Space Station simply a way for humanity to continue should humans on Earth meet disaster?

I do like the idea of preserving beauty for the next generation. It is disoncerting to find a wonderful spot only to find it overdeveloped or trashed on a return visit.